Professors Daniel Justin Herman (History Department, Central Washington
University) and Matthew Warshauer (History Department, Central Connecticut
State University) have received telephone calls and e-mails from Professor
James Lindgren (Law School, Northwestern University) requesting retractions
concerning comments made in our respective reviews of Michael Bellesiles'
ARMING AMERICA.  In the spirit of open scholarly discussion, we have chosen
to respond in a joint e-mail to both H-SHEAR and H-LAW.

Statement by Daniel Justin Herman, History Department, Central Washington
University, in response to James Lindgren's request for a qualification of
comments published in "Gun Battles," H-Pol, May, 2000 (archived at
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/reviews)

Jim Lindgren has asked me to qualify certain statements made in my review of
Michael Bellesiles's ARMING AMERICA for H-Pol, which I have agreed to do in
the interest of a fair, impartial, and full discussion of ARMING AMERICA's
strengths and weaknesses.

As I pointed out in my review, Lindgren has found serious errors in
Bellesiles's estimates of the number of guns in probate records. In my
review, I also asserted that the errors in Bellesiles's probate figures did
not discredit Bellesiles's thesis, given that Bellesiles relied heavily on
other sorts of evidence, particularly militia records and gun censuses.
Finally, I asserted that Lindgren had not looked at enough probate records to
come up with reliable figures for per capita gun ownership in the United
States (or even the number of guns per capita in probate records) in the late
colonial and early national eras.

On the latter point, I admit partial error.  By using records compiled by
Alice Hanson Jones, Lindgren indeed analyzed a representative national sample
of probate records for the United States for the year 1774. That
representative sample, according to Lindgren, indicates that 54% of probate
records contained guns.  I also agree with Lindgren that Bellesiles erred in
not weighting his probate records.  Even though Bellesiles claimed to have
looked at 11,170 probate records, the statistics derived from those records
mean little unless they are properly weighted to reflect demographic and
social disparities.

I have been asked repeatedly-by Lindgren, by Washington Times columnist John
Lofton, and by others-whether I still believe that Bellesiles's thesis holds
up.  My answer is that, though Bellesiles's made serious mistakes not only on
probate records but on many other matters in his voluminous study, I do not
believe that his thesis has been discredited in its entirety.  In my opinion
(not shared by Lindgren), someone will have to study many thousands of
probate records from the late colonial, early national, and antebellum
periods-and weight these records properly-to get an adequate estimate of the
minimum number of guns owned by white American males at the time of their
deaths (perhaps in the interest of accuracy, the AHA and the NRA together
could convene a panel comprised of both gun-control and gun-rights advocates
to evaluate each probate record!!).  As I said in my review, however, even if
we know exactly how many white American males owned and used guns, it will be
exceedingly difficult to determine whether Americans participated in a "gun
culture," given the nebulous definition of that phrase.

Finally, I agree with Lindgren and others that serious questions have been
raised about Bellesiles's scholarship.  Though I do not know Michael
Bellesiles personally, I hope and trust that he will answer his critics in
the forthcoming issue of WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY.  Meanwhile, I hope that
those interested in this debate will read both my review on H-Net and Matt
Warshauer's review in CONNECTICUT HISTORY to gain a more elaborate
understanding of the pros and cons of Bellesiles's book.

Daniel Justin Herman
Assistant Professor
Central Washington University


Statement by Matthew Warshauer, History Department, Central Connecticut State
University, in response to James Lindgren's request for a qualification
concerning comments published in my review, "Shooting from the Hip: A Review
of ARMING AMERICA," CONNECTICUT HISTORY 40 (2) (Fall 2001): 275-298:

In early November I spoke on the telephone at some length with Professor
Lindgren about Michael Bellesiles' ARMING AMERICA.  We discussed Bellesiles'
use of probate records, my review of the book, and my comments concerning
Professor Lindgren's conclusions about Bellesiles' probate evidence.

Approximately one month after this conversation, I received an e-mail from
Professor Lindgren requesting that I print a correction in either CONNECTICUT
HISTORY or online via H-SHEAR or H-Law. Subsequent e-mails followed in which
Lindgren repeated his request.

Professor Lindgren urged me to choose my "own language..., but I request that
you substantially convey this message:"  (What follows are Lindgren's words
using the words "I" and "my" to mean me, Matthew Warshauer.  The sub-quoted
sentence appearing after "H-SHEAR" are my words from an H-SHEAR posting
announcing the publication of my review, that Lindgren incorporated in his
statement.)

Lindgren: "My review in CONNECTICUT HISTORY of ARMING AMERICA is being
discussed on H-LAW.

As I wrote when I provided a link to it on H-SHEAR:
'This review was written prior to some of the newer information regarding San
Francisco probate records, but still provides some pertinent commentary
regarding ARMING AMERICA.'

That was my indirect way of saying that I no longer had confidence in my
statements about the probate evidence, which were a minor part of my review.
Like some other reviewers, I may have relied too heavily on the statements of
Michael Bellesiles instead of checking them more carefully.  I have
reconsidered my views on the probate records generally - not just those from
San Francisco."

Professor Lindgren is concerned with my review because others have claimed
that I definitively refuted his work.  I made no such claim, though I would
like to state for the record that I continue to have confidence in my review
of ARMING AMERICA.  That said, I wish to clarify my statement in "Shooting
from the Hip" (281), that, "The simple fact, as Bellesiles has made
repeatedly and correctly, is that he and Lindgren
use different probate records."  Lindgren and Bellesiles actually use
overlapping sets of probate records, most specifically The Early Records of
the Town of Providence. Indeed, Lindgren has engaged in some extensive
investigation that raises questions in regard to Bellesiles' counts.
Whereas, I claim no special expertise in probate records I still believe, as
I said in my review, that further investigation of the probate records is
warranted.  An additional question regarding The Early Records of the Town of
Providence is that they are available in both hardbound editions and on CD
ROM.

If I remember correctly Professor Lindgren explained in our telephone
conversation that he looked at both of these sets.  It appears in his
citations to "Counting Guns in Early America" that he cited the original
texts, though this is not entirely clear.  I am currently in the process of
comparing the texts and the CD ROM to determine whether they are in fact the
same.  When I spoke on the telephone, to several employees, of the company
that produces the CD ROM, none could tell me if they were exact replications.

With no malice in the least towards Professor Lindgren, I cannot determine
whether his is the definitive study on Bellesiles' use of probate records.
I'm not sure if it is possible to have a definitive study at this early date.
 There are simply too many unanswered questions; many of which Bellesiles
should address.  (Lindgren has made this point a number of times.)  In this
respect, I very much look forward to the WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY Forum due
out this coming spring.  I also concur with Daniel Herman's request that
those who are interested read our reviews.  It seems that during this debate
some have attempted to draw strictly pro- or anti-Bellesiles lines.
Professor Herman and I have plenty to say, both good and bad, about ARMING
AMERICA.

Matthew Warshauer
Assistant Professor of History
Central Connecticut State University

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS